Thesis (Psy.D.)--Rutgers University, 2009. / "Graduate Program in School Psychology." Includes bibliographical references (p. 69-72).

Thesis (D. Min.)--New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-104).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 70-75).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 240-247).

Thesis (M. Soc. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1983.

Indigenous peoples are garnering more focus on the world stage, and as such it is critical to understand their role in development. Indigenous peoples are especially impoverished, and often face institutionalized discrimination by their governments and other forces. This repression, limited access to services, and resource predation endanger indigenous peoples’ lives and livelihoods. I attempted to identify indigenous peoples’ policies in seven major development international non-governmental organizations, and after finding none upon document research and staff interviews, propose theories for why this could be the case. I compare international non-governmental organizations’ lack of policies to the presence of policies in international organizations. The difference between these two types of organizations formed the base of my theories, which were based primarily around the organizational structure and the different types of pressure and expectations that they face. I argue, though, that international non-governmental organizations should have indigenous peoples’ policies for several reasons including the improvement seen in international organizations’ treatment of indigenous peoples and the importance of accountability and transparency in the development process. The Report finishes by suggesting avenues to test the theories proposed, and plans for indigenous advocates. / text

published_or_final_version / Sociology / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

This research is a journey of mine, as a CSL (Chinese as second language) teacher, using autoethnographical method to explore my own emotions and professional growth in the teaching of Chinese language to EM students. This research is a study of self-exploration. To make it simple, the autoethnography is written in accordance to the natural sequence of my self-exploration. First, I have chosen to report some of my raw experiences over the two-and-half years of teaching with the 2009 and 2010 cohorts of EM students (S2 and S1) as significant critical incidents that form the basis of my layers of reflection. They form the primary domain of the study. The writing is structured according to the classification suggested by Schon: 1. Reflection in Action: This part of the writing provides rich description of a series of critical incidents or episodes and my thoughts and feelings in the incidents. In writing each incident, the memory brings me back to the time and some instant reflection (usually filled, with some heavy emotions, confusion which needs clarity) may also be added to the description. The ‘Reflection in Action’ with the 2 cohorts of students is reported in two separate chapters. 2. Reflection on Action: After each ‘Reflection in Action’ chapter (which is mainly narratives of the critical incidents), there is a ‘Reflection on Action’ chapter which provides more in-depth analysis and reflection of my experience. With the 2009 cohort (S2 students), the associated ‘Reflection on Action’ is structured around the various emotions and relations experienced. And then with the 2010 cohort (S1 students), the associated ‘Reflection on Action’ is structured around my roles, values and cultural conflicts in the experience. 3. ‘Reflection for Action’: After I have completed ‘Reflection on Action’ on my experience to these two groups of students, I then make an overall reflection. The intention is to develop a better conceptualization of the whole experience and develop some theory that can serve as direction for my future practice, or hypothesis for consideration and future research by others. Before writing this final ‘Reflection for Action’, to provide a more valid and reliable basis for it, I interview some students (those involved in some of the significant incidents), three teachers from my school and three other teachers from other educational institutions. (One is a teaching staff working at the University of Hong Kong, one is from a Band 2 secondary school with lot of EM students, and the last one is a teaching staff working in a subsidized secondary school with some EM students.) Having the private talk with students can give me more insight on how some issues are seen from the students’ side. In the interviews, the critical incidents are used as stimulus together with questions which are designed for sharing emotions and enhancing understanding. After the final ‘Reflection for Action’, I will reflect on how the process of autoethographic writing and try to share with readers its values in teacher growth and other practical knowledge on using this methodology, including its strengths and limitations. In reflecting on my interaction, relation and emotions with students, I found my weaknesses; but I also came to realize fear existed in most of us. The way we handled our fear reflects our values and attitudes and in turn affected the fear of others. Our students also had their fear. The cultures of my students and me, and the differences, had made a great impact on our understanding of each other, and hence our emotional feelings towards each perceptions on cultural identity, and I tried to match the cultural strategies I learnt from literature with the cultural strategies practiced by me and my students. I also began to question how I saw (and would need to see) myself as their teacher, and respond to the differences between us. The issue of a teacher’s self and its formation in intercultural teaching then also became the focus of the study. In the end, you may ask, ‘what do you get from writing this autoethnographic research? In this teaching journey: teaching Chinese to the non-Chinese, you may ask, is teaching pedagogy very important fro students to learn better? Yes. But apart from teaching pedagogy, we need to take other issues into consideration. The issue of emotions and intercultural difference often emerges during the process of teaching and learning especially when teaching with ethnic minority students and this we need to take it into consideration to make the teaching of ethnic minority more smooth. To make the teaching of ethnic minority successful, we also need to understand our limitations and be accommodating, positive and show understanding to our students. In short, in the process of autoethnographic study, I have learned from lived experience. Through layers of reflection in different perspectives and different timing: reflection, it allows me to have some space to understand myself, show respect to others: students, parents and colleagues. We learn when we teach and we grow when we nurture our students with understanding and teach them with the virtue of gratitude. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Education

Not available / text

Not available / text